On 5/27/2014 2:58 PM, Black, David wrote:
Hi Sagi,
Hey David,
RFC-7143 states:
"the Expected Data Transfer Length field contains the number of bytes of
data involved in this SCSI operation."
Since this field relates to *data bytes* I kept T10-PI implicit wrt this
field. The iSCSI target cal
oracle.com; Mike Christie; Nicholas A. Bellinger
> Cc: linux-scsi; target-devel; Oren Duer; james.sm...@emulex.com; Or Gerlitz;
> c...@chadalapaka.com; juli...@infinidat.com; m...@il.ibm.com; Black, David
> Subject: iSCSI Expected Data Transfer Length for T10-PI
>
> Hey All,
>
>
On 5/25/2014 10:39 PM, Julian Satran wrote:
Hi Julian,
I have some trouble parsing you English/Question.
I'll try to clarify.
I think the intent of SCSI PI was that wherever the PI exist it should be
checked end-to-end and it may be checked in between.
A storage client (server) will have
I have some trouble parsing you English/Question. I think the intent of SCSI PI
was that wherever the PI exist it should be checked end-to-end and it may be
checked in between.
A storage client (server) will have the PI appended in the memory when writing
and reading and checking it. As the valu
Hey All,
Recently, iSER end-to-end T10-PI support maid it mainline.
I am wandering about the impact T10-PI should or shouldn't have on iSCSI
header
field "Expected Data Transfer Length".
RFC-7143 states:
"the Expected Data Transfer Length field contains the number of bytes of
data involved in
5 matches
Mail list logo